That's not the argument I am trying to make or have ever tried to make. The point I am making is that unless the government owns the means of production, then all government income derives ultimately from private sector activity. Taxes paid by public sector workers are not 'new money', in the sense that the government has given that money to the public sector workers in the first place, and is then taking it back. Since the UK got rid of all its nationalised industries, there are no government-owned enterprises which generate wealth. These are all in the private sector now, and that's where the surplus value is created which is then taxed to provide the government with its revenue.

It could be argued that this process of paying public sector workers out of one pot and then taking some of it back to go into another pot is a fiscally inefficient means of distributing the available income across different budgets - although it does have the politically desirable effect of promoting the illusion that public sector workers are contributing to the economy in exactly the same way as private sector workers - which clearly they aren't, if for no other reason than their relationship with the State.

This is NOT trying to imply that public sector workers do not contribute to society. That would be specious and insulting to millions of hard-working and valuable public sector workers. But it does help us to recognise that the contribution is made in a different way - and you yourself have identified that this difference exists in your distinction between the way services are procured across the two sectors.

At its simplest, the private sector exists to provide goods and services which the public want to have and which they don't mind being rationed by price. The public sector exists to provide the goods and services which the public need and to which they don't wish to have their access restricted by wealth. A mixed economy is clearly a good thing, I am not arguing against the public sector's existence in any way. But to understand the value we get from it, and to understand it's role in society, it's important I believe to understand exactly how it is funded.

You cannot get ANY income from the public sector without having FIRST paid them with money from the private sector.

If you have NO money from the private sector, you have NO money to pay the public sector so cannot get any tax back from them.

Anyway, you can either pay public sector worker X amount and take Y% in tax or pay them Y% less and take no tax, the net effect is the same. The net income is still that £6k.

All the govt. is really doing it "moving" existing money around, not creating money, i.e. growth. (caveat being any income from outside sources, i.e. govt. selling stuff abroad, such as what the oil states do. In this county, the figures are relatively tiny).

Anyway, I can't be arsed anymore, off to do more exciting things

Nope. Government income (taxation) is derived from the production of goods and services. There is no basic economic difference between tax on public sector and private sector production of goods/services

No, the tax IS new money. It is levied on the goods/services produced by the Public sector

How did privatisation change the nature of the taxes paid??? this is the point Ive tried to make several times. A miner employed by the National Coal Board produced the same goods and paid the same tax when he moved to RJB Mining Plc. Yet your argument seems to be that, when he was in the public sector there was no wealth creation.

Again I would reiterate - there is NO difference between Public Sector / Private Sector with regards to (a)production of goods/services and (b) Taxation. If you think there is then please explain to me the difference between the taxes paid by an NHS nurse vs the taxes paid by a BUPA nurse.

The NHS nurse produces a service which is paid for indirectly by consumers via tax.

The BUPA nurse is paid directly by the consumer.

Both have contributed towards GDP and the economic output of the nation. Both will pay exactly the same type of income taxes.

I still don't see what your point is. If we agree that some tasks within a society are best left to the public sector, and if we agree that a public sector is a good thing, and that a private individual can work for either public or private and that is is the wealth of the private individual that drives everything, then what difference does it make who works for who?

What is your point in stating the obvious? Red is different from blue, or pink is different from mauve, but so what?

You do know they'll both be back in an hour asking you for a tenner